DVDs of the 2nd All India DRT Conference held on 8th
and 9th Jan ’11 are available – these DVDs contain goldmine of
useful information to borrowers, guarantors and their advocates

We are pleased to inform that 5 DVDs and 1 CD of the said
Conference are available at a token price of Rs. 1000=00. This amount is peanut
compared to that spent by the participants who came from far off places like
Cochin, Kolkata, Chandigarh, Chennai etc at their own expenses, stayed at Indore
and paid the participation fee of Rs. 4500=00 per head.

These 5 DVDs are complete video record of the whole
conference and are gold mine of the current information on:-

(a)Securitisation
Act, important questions and answers, practical aspects of stay and trial in
DRTs,

(b)Important court
judgments and their applications,

(c)Court procedures
and critical applications,

(d)Bank documents
and their inspection,

(e)Legal maxims and
their applications,

(f)Important
provisions of Constitution and PILs,

(g)Present state of
Indian Judiciary, problems and solutions,

(h)Application of
modern management and technology etc.

We have provided in one CD complete audio record of the whole
conference so that one can listen the same on i-pod. As a whole these DVDs and
the CD provide the most latest and useful knowledge to the borrowers and
guarantors as well as their advocates. The procedure for getting these DVDs is as under:-

(1)

You may deposit Rs. 1000=00 in our bank account details of which may be obtained by
sending SMS to us.

(2)

Pl inform the particulars of the above deposit to us by
e-mail and by SMS to our mobile no 09691103689

1.Our client is an
entrepreneur, having 16 years of experience, started Mushroom Cultivation and
food products, a National Important Agricultural Project by utilizing
non-conventional source of energy in 1999 after undergoing training
in Tamil Nadu Agricultural University and Winrock International, New Delhi. This
is the water conserves Agriculture Project for cultivation of agricultural
product that encourage the poor rural agriculturists who are below poverty line.

2.After the Technical
feasibility and financial viability, the Bank sanctioned Agricultural
Term Loan of Rs.12, 93,000 and cash credit Loan of Rs.3, 50,000 16.10.2002 at
the commercial Rate of Interest of 14.50% with monthly rest instead of the lower
concessional rate of interest with yearly rest, applicable to the Agricultural
loan, infringing the RBI Guidelines and the policy of government of India which
is categorically held in the case of Central Bank of India Vs. Ravindra ( 2001
SOL Case No.637) in Supreme Court that reads:

Para 52:

…Reserve Bank of India has also shown
its concern towards agriculturist loanees by devising separate policy to govern
them and not permitting capitalisation of accrued interest on agricultural loans
except on annual rest or when the loan/installment has become overdue.

he is charged exorbitant interest with monthly rest not applicable
to Agricultural loan and the alleged claim in the Demand notice by the Bank is a
fabricated and it is denied it as debt. The judgement in Supreme Court Central
Bank of India Vs. Ravindra (2001 SOL Case No.637) is in the favour of the
Appellant:

Para 53:

….if the bank was claiming interest in excess of that
permitted by the circular/direction of the Reserve Bank, the Court could give
relief to the aggrieved party not withstanding Section 21A to the extent of
interest charged in excess of the rate prescribed by the Reserve bank of India….

The Bank has adjudged the compound interest with monthly rest
instead of simple interest with yearly rest as per the RBI direction and the
alleged claim by the Bank is liable for dismissal as per the judgement in the
case Indian Bank Vs. Jems Metals (P) Ltd in DRAT, Mumvai (2004(4) ALL MR
(JOURNAL) 19

3. The Bank
regularly debiting in the account towards Insurance premium. In 2004, the entire
project area and the semi finished and finished products is damaged and washed
away due to natural calamity of flood and continuous Torrential rain, causing
heavy loss. He made a representation to the bank for assistance as per the
Reserve Bank of India guidelines vide No.
RBI/2006-2007/16 RPCD. No. PLFS. BC. 1/05.04.02/ 2007-08
July 2, 2007 which is the MASTER CIRCULAR - GUIDELINES FOR RELIEF MEASURES BY
BANKS IN AREAS AFFECTED BY NATURAL CALAMITIES referred to Master Circular
RPCD.No.PLFS.BC.10 /05.04.02/2005-06 dated July 10, 2006 incorporating
guidelines issued to banks in regard to matters relating to relief measures to
be provided in areas affected by natural calamities. Master Circular for
2007-2008 incorporating the existing guidelines/ instructions on the subject has
been prepared and is appended. But no opportunity was given to him and due to
which he sustained heavy loss.

4. He made many representations requested the Bank for the
Insurance claim from the Insurance Company for the damages due to natural
calamities and the Bank had not initiate any action till date and also for the
rescheduling repayment.

5. The Bank freezed the cash Credit Account from 2004 without
communicating the reasons to him was unable generate cash for want of need Based
Working Capital, resulting sickness.

6. The Bank issued notice on 22.03.2006 after 2 years from
the date of suspending the operation of loan Cash Credit Account. The various
outstanding amounts mentioned in the notice were not reflected with details and
they are incorrect to be claimed as ‘debt’. In response to this letter I as an
advocate replied to the Bank on 16.12.2006 to furnish the amount with details as
per the Act and Statement of Accounts. But the Bank failed to submit the same
till date. He paid Rs.1, 50,000/- on 30.06.2006 as per the promise of Regional
Manager of the Bank for the renewal and rescheduling the repayment. But no
reschedule or rephasement was given to him.

7. Instead of honoring the promise the Bank issued Possession
notice dated 17.11.2006. He sent representation on 06.12.2006 for the revival of
the unit by renewing the loan with lower rate of interest, applicable to
agricultural oriented natural project. But there is no reply till date. Thus the
Bank violated Sec.13 (3A) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial
Assets and enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002.

8. He filed OA(S).1/2008 before DRT Madurai, praying to grant
an interim order of stay of all proceedings furtherance of notice dated
15.12.2006 u/s 13(4) of the SARFAESI. The DRT, Madurai awarded interim stay with
condition to pay Rs.70, 000/- and he paid the same. Another Rs.50, 000/- paid as
per the order of the said Tribunal in the subsequent hearing and thus
complied both the conditional orders. The stay order was in force till the
next hearing.

9. On 14-02-2008 the previous counsel named C.P. Raghavan was
unable to appear as he held up in Coimbatore due to his urgent work on the
particular day and he asked him to get adjournment stating the reasons.
Accordingly he appeared before the said Tribunal and stated the reasons for his
counsel’s non appearance and requested for adequate opportunity for his earlier
counsel’s non appearance. Taking the advantage of his counsel’s non-appearance
the bank counsel in an arbitrary manner in an urgent way pressed for enquiry on
that day itself knowing the fact that his counsel was absent. But the said
Tribunal vacated stay for auction sale in spite of his valid reasonable
objections. No opportunity was given to him and therefore a principle of natural
justice has been violated.

12. Thus there is foul play by the bank as when the question of
facts rendered by the bank in their counter affidavit is in question there is
real prejudice has been caused to him. And the bank who does not controvert the
veracity of the evidence from or testimony gathered behind his back cannot
expect to succeed in any subsequent event because the bank has not disputed the
fact regarding agricultural loan anywhere in their counter, whatsoever they
filed and not denied any of the facts in the interim applications clearly
establishes the fact that the term loan is a agricultural loan. The bank has
taken this issue as a prestige issue and in order to succeed the case by hook or
crook and on their whims and fancies has not given any opportunity for the
recent agricultural waiver, where he has filed a typed set of pages regarding
the RBI circular which was forwarded by the Reserve bank of India authorities
concerned who had taken the matter seriously to give adequate waiver for the
agriculturalist who come under the purview of the recent budget of agricultural
waiver. The bank has wrongly interpreted the fact of agriculture and no
opportunity was given.

13. I technically pointed out that the loan is borrowed by him
for purchasing the solar dryer machine only for the purpose of cultivating and
drying the mushroom which comes under the category of the agricultural activity
as laid down below in the tabular column defining the fact that in the code No.
01121 defines growing in open and under cover, of vegetables is an agricultural
activity which categorically explains the mushroom cultivation and the code
No.01404 defines the purposes of drying and summing up the code Number from
No.01111 to 02006 is also an agricultural activity.

14. The rule of audi alteram partem was not given/shown and the
bank using the order of vacation of stay in a arbitrary manner have proceeded
further without obtaining any decree/order from the Tribunal for further sale of
the collateral security and without following the rules and violating the
leading judgment of the supreme court of India like Khem Chands case AIR.1958 SC
300 which categorically held that a fair and reasonable opportunity should be
given to defend his case by adducing his evidence regarding the interest charged
and disputed facts regarding the commercial transaction and also regarding
violations of the RBI guidelines for One Time Settlement and other opportunity
of getting rehabilitation assistance from the District Industries Centre, NABARD
as part of DRIP and also from KVIC etc.

15. The bank has in a second time has issued the auction sale
notice and and pointed out that the law does not say that the bank could give
many number of auction sale notice they want under SERFAESI Act. If once the
notice has been stayed by the Hon’ble Tribunal and if the case is pending before
this Honourable Tribunal, then the bank has to proceed further by getting an
order from the Tribunal to do so. But here the bank violating principles of
natural justice in an arbitrary manner and also violating the Article 311 of the
Constitution of India has published a notice dated 02-03-2008 and fixed the
auction sale 05-04-2008.

16. That instead of honouring the promise by the Bank issued
Possession notice dated 17.11.2006. Representation was sent on 06.12.2006 for
the revival of the unit by renewing the loan with lower rate of interest,
applicable to agricultural oriented natural project. But there is no reply till
date.

17. I pointed out the following disputed Points relating to the
facts and circumstances of the case which the Bank is answerable:-

17.1.The Bank sanctioned the
loan as ‘Agricultural Term Loan’.

17.2.The Bank charged
commercial Rate of Interest of 14.5% instead of applicable 7% for loan for
Agricultural products, infringing the RBI guidelines and the recoverable claim
in the notice is incorrect and false, abusing and misusing the SARFAES Act.

17.3.The Recoverable Dues as
claimed in the notice of the Bank Dt. 22.03.2006 is a fabricated since it is
adjudged with interest of non-applicable excess rate of interest as per RBI
guidelines.

17.4.The details of Principle
and Interest are not shown in the notice issued by the Bank.

17.5.The Bank has not
considered either rescheduling the repayment of the loan or nursing the
Agricultural oriented natural products of various schemes rendered by the Union
Bank of India.

17.6.As the Bank did not get
the Insurance compensation from the Insurance Company as the act of non-feasance,
negligence of Duty of care.

17.7.The Bank did not initiate
to get 50% of solar Dryer cost from Ministry of Industries and Commerce, New
Delhi due to act of negligence of duty.

17.8.The Bank failed to get
subsidy of 15% as per G/O.Ms.No.41/Inds./MGII Dt.19.03.2006.

17.9.The Bank failed to get
subsidy of 5% as per G/O.Ms.No.506/Inds./MGII Dt.13.02.1991.

17.10.The Bank failed to apply for Refinancing facility of 100% from
NABARD.

18. Finally I took the stand before the DRT, Madurai
regarding the recent Budget of the Union government for in February, 2008, the
Financial Minster declared the waiver of Agricultural Loan and also directed the
Reserve Bank of India to send circulars to all the Nationalized banks and other
allied banking sectors for waiver of Agricultural Term Loan. I found the
Reserve bank of India circular vide No.RPCD.PLFS.101/05.04.02/2007-08 March3,
2008 dated March3, 2008 and sent the same to the bank. As per Union Budget
2008-2009-Announcement of Waiver and OTS Scheme for Farmers in respect of all
direct agricultural loans disbursed by bank upto March 31st 2007, and
overdue as on Dec 31st 2007 and remaining unpaid until Feb 29, 2008
are covered under waiver and he is entitled to enjoy that benefit and to that
effect as he applied waiver of entire his agricultural loan on through
representation dated 10-03-2008, only shows the loan as agricultural loan.

20. Further I took the stand that as the result of the
Professional negligence, breach of duty Care, infringement of the RBI direction,
Banking Law and SARFAESI Act, the Bank, cunningly commingled with external
agencies tries to sell the property worth of Rs.45 lacs with the auction price
of Rs.10.12 lacs for personnel gain.

21. Further I stated that he bought the loan only for
purchasing the drying machine which is agricultural in nature as above mentioned
and the bank has inordinately, had wrongly compelled him to give three secured
assets where the two assets are house property which is itself fetches several
lakhs and its valuation reports are also submitted before the Tribunal as a
typed set of pages. Leaving those properties the bank has intentionally wanted
to grab the mushroom cultivation of 20 cents, who is having tie up with the
purchaser named E. Periayasamy. Mr. Periasamy is already inimical towards him
and due to which he had filed a case against him before the Thuraiyur for
criminal intimidation by way of getting order from the Madras High Court Madurai
Bench three years before and only inorder to take revenge and also destroy his
whole agricultural activity has intentionally involved in this case to grab the
property.

22. Further I took a stand that
pending all these applications the finance minister in the recent budget 2008-09
had issued complete waiver of the Agricultural loan. Relying upon this Reserve
Bank of India issued a circular to all the nationalized banks in India vide No RPCD.PLFS.101/05.04.02/2007-08 dated March 3, 2008
to give waiver. Since agricultural activity is covered under the said scheme I
filed another interim application before the DRT Madurai praying to declare
complete waiver of the appellant’s agricultural activity in I.A.No.345 of 2008.
Since no orders passed on all the above mentioned application I filed an
memorandum of appeal before the Hon’ble Debts Recovery Tribunal Chennai in
M.a.No.295 of 2008 dated 02-04-2008 and on the very same day the matter came up
for hearing before the DRT Madurai where I filed a memo in the open Tribunal
stating the fact of filing MA before the DRAT Madurai. As the day on which the
auction sale was fixed became holiday the auction was rescheduled on 09-04-2008
at about 12.00 AM. I sent a telegraphic message regarding the filing of appeal
before the DRAT Chennai also. Again I approached the Hon’ble High court Madurai
Bench in W.P.3791 of 2008 and sought for the relief of agricultural waiver but
the Hon’ble High court has ordered that the relief sought for could not
considered under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and the same was
dismissed.

23. I filed
appeal before the DRAT came up for hearing on stay application on 09-04-2008 and
the stay was granted around 11.00 A.M and liberty was granted by the Hon’ble
Judge to give telegraphic message of the order to the bank, the same was sent
intimating the stay of auction sale by the DRAT. Immediately when he received
the message regarding stay, he gave a letter to the Branch Manager at about
11.20 AM on 09-04-2008 in person and a telegram to that effect is also sent to
the authorized officer, Coimbatore and also to the higher officials concerned on
09-04-2008 at about 11.45 AM. But the bank branch manager along with the local
rowdy elements by getting illegal gratification of several lakhs from the
purchaser who are hand in glow with each other in a indirect collusion with the
bank the purchasers named E. Periasamy who are very close with them. They after
getting huge bribe amount of several lakhs from the purchaser who is very known
to them had undervalued the appellant’s property for only Rs.10, 12,000/-, where
the worth of the property as per the authorized licensed valuer is Rs.33 lakhs
and above. The Branch Manager named Viramani and others had committed a fraud
on our client for wrongful gain and undervalued the whole property situated at a
Plot No.86/9, Muthayapalayam Village, Perumal Malai Adivaram, Thuraiyur and in a
very urgent manner dishonestly and fraudulently without accepting the letter and
telegram sent through court and also without obeying the same conducted the
auction at 1.00 PM. Not only the bank auctioned the property but also confirmed
the sale violating the SERAESI Act and DRT Rules and the bank sent a letter to
that effect dated 02-05-2008.

24. Aaggrieved
upon the illegal activities of the branch manager and the authorized officer who
are public servant, the I sent a telegram to the Superintendent of police,
Trichy District on 09-04-2008 and also to the Inspector of police, Thuraiyur
Police Station, Trichy District for illegally conducting the auction sale after
getting huge bribe of several lakhs where the worth of the property is Rs.33
lakhs and above and also for not obeying the stay orders of the appellate
Tribunal and also defrauding him and their family members which are punishable
under Sec.166, 167, 403, 406, 409, 415, 417, 418, 420, 425, 463, 464, 465 and
120(b) read with Sec 34 of IPC. Both the bankers have taken the law in their
own hand. The Inspector of Police, Thuraiyur PS, after receiving the complaint
against the erring bankers for their unlawful activities and cheating for
committing the above said offences gave a police receipt vide No 113 of 2008
dated 10-04-2008. And after finding the real facts of the illegal activities and
since no actions has been taken by them I sent a detailed complaint to the
higher officials concerned on 10-04-2008 also.

25. I
filed the direction petition before the Hon’ble Madurai Bench of Madras High
court in Crl.O.P.No.4526 of 2008 dated 28-04-2008
praying to direct the police to register a case based on the complaint dated
10-04-2008 and file a final report. The Hon’ble High Court directed to
approach the concerned Judicial Magistrate court for getting proper relief as
per law under Sec 156(3) CrP.C and also based on the judgment laid down in
Parkash Singh Badal Vs. State of Punjab where no sanction u/s.197 is required
for offences under Sec.420,467, 468, 471 and 120 (b).

26. As per the direction of Hon’ble High court, I filed this petition
seeking the relief to forward his complaint to the Inspector of Police,
Thuraiyur Police Station, Trichy and direct him to register a case upon her
complaint dated 10-04-2008 against the accused. Accordingly the Judicial
Magistrate Thuraiyur has passed an order to investigate and register a case.

Finally after continuous representation and reply to take
immediate action against the culprits involved in endangering the banking sector
and grant waiver in lieu of the waiver of Agricultural Loan of recoverable debt
as per the Circular issued by RBI vide No.RPCD.PLFS.101/05.04.02/2007-08 dated
March3, 2008 and consequently direct the Bank to terminate all the process of
action taken by them now and in future under SARFAESI Act, or any other act for
the mortgaged properties including sale and transfer of mortgaged property.

Here it has to be noted that the neither DRT not DRAT and High
Court understood the waiver as per the RBI. But finally the bank advocate
informed me that the bank has decided to give the waiver and sent a letter. The
Abstract of Letter is:

UNION
BANK OF INDIA

Head
Office:239, Vidhan Bhavan Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai -21

To,
06/08/2008

M/s. Madura Mushrooms

Sir,

Sub: Agricultural debt waiver & debt relief scheme 2008.

As per the recent government guidelines for waiver/relief of
agricultural loans under agricultural debt waiver & debt relief scheme 2008, we
wish to inform that your account is also eligible for agricultural debt relief.
Accordingly you are requested to call on us for further details and executing
the undertaking. We also enclose the relief letter and under taking letter.
Kindly acknowledge and send us your confirmation.

Branch Manager.

Union Bank of India

This is the total story of our case. Finally I asked him to file
the counter claim to teach them the lesson but he is not in a stage to bare the
expenses and due to the bank he is hospitalized now. I am now happy that I saved
him by getting total waiver.

The Bank sanctioned Agricultural
Term Loan of Rs.12.30laqcks and C.C Loan of Rs.3.50 lacs in 2002. But
the bank charged commercial rate of interest of 14.50% instead of
applicable rate of interest around 7%.

In the Statement of account it is
mentioned ATL.

The bank issued possession notice
in 2007 under SERFAESI Act.

The Defendant filed O.A
challenging possession notice.

Tribunal granted conditional stay
order of paying Rs.70,000. In another hearing the Tribunal passed
another conditional order of Rs.50.000. Both the orders are compiled and
the stay was forced till next hearing.

In the sanctioned letter
Agricultural loan is not mentioned. But in the Statement of Account and
other communication documents, ATL (Agricultural Term Loan) is written.

Sr. Counsel (Not Mr. Arun Murugan)
was unable to appear on 14.02.08 and the Appellant (the entrepreneur)
represented for adjournment and to give an opportunity for the
appearance of the Sr. Counsel later date.

Exploiting this advantage the bank
counsel demanded the enquiry and the Tribunal vacated the stay without
giving opportunity to the defendant’s request during the hearing.

The bank tries to sell the
property for Rs.15 lacs for the mortgaged Agricultural property valued
Rs.45 lacs as per the licensed charted Engineer.

Also prayed for waiver of
Agricultural Loan declared in the Parliament during Budget session by
the Financial Minister. Also send application for the waiver of the
agricultural loan to the Bank with registered post with acknowledgement
with copy to Regional Office of the bank.

In the last hearing Mr. Arun
Murugan appeared, challenged and had healthy argument with P.O that the
unit got Agricultural Term Loan and not commercial loan. He adduced that
the Mushroom cultivation is the agricultural product declared as per RBI
and report from Agricultural College, Coimbatore.

P.O and the bank lawyer are
nonplused and the bank is so confident and strong impression that they
will get the recovery certificate in the same day. They did not expect
and unaware of the other front of attack from Mr. Arun Murugan. The Sr.
Counsel of the entrepreneur appearing for this case for the past one
year appreciated Mr. Arun Murugan about his technical talent and changed
the stands taken by P.O in favour of the bank.

Today 27.03.08, the hearing came
and Mr. Arun Murugan represented and reiterated that the loan is
sanctioned Agricultural Loan and the claim by the bank is in commercial
nature and null and void. The P.O reprimanded the counsel of the bank
who misleads P.O that the unit is SSI unit and attracts commercial loan.
But the bank fails to produce any evidence. They also told that they
need not adduce any evidence under SERFAESI Act. P.O got angry and
directed that it is essential to produce evidence even under SERFAESI
Act. The bank also stated that the unit produced SSI certificate and is
not entitled under Agricultural Loan Scheme. He also told the bank is
producing only the Statement of Accounts and this not sufficient for
adjudication. He directed the bank to produce all documents as per the
request of Mr.Arun Murugan.

The
above material was already forwarded and updated in your web site.

The
proceedings after:

A thrilling Success Story:

During the first week of April,
three IAs are filed:

Review Petition for the order
issued to vacate the stay as per the advice of Mr.Ramkishan.

Stay Petition for Auction Sale.

Set-aside Petition.

The hearing is posted on 02.04.08
and DRT ordered to file written Petition specifically on that Day of
hearing by both the bank and borrower.

In anticipation of order, not to
be in favour of the borrower, we filed emergency appeal in DRAT, Chennai
on 02.04.08 challenging the order issued by DRT/Madurai to vacate the
stay for action sale due on 07.04.08.

A detailed written Argument was
filed on 02.04.08 in DRT with a memo that an appeal is filed in DRAT.
P.O stated ‘Let the borrower get whatever be the order from DRAT’ and he
was silent to issue order for these three IAs. Order is reserved.

Surprisingly P.O/DRT/Madurai
issued the dismissal order the same day on 02.04.08 for all three IAs
without any reasons but mentioning DRT is not satisfied.

Telegrams are sent to the bank
about the appeal in DRAT to stop auction sale and any action is at the
risk of the bank.

After mentioning on 04.04.08, DRAT
listed appeal on 09.04.08 since there is no sitting on 07.04.08.

The due auction sale falls on
07.04.08, a declared Holiday and the Bank published the auction sale on
09.04.08 without 30 days notice from 07.04.08 which is mandatory for the
next auction sale.

Thrilling Melting Moment:

·DRAT granted stay at 11.30 on
09.04.08 till 09.05.08.

·The message is passed from Chennai
to the borrower who is in Trichy.

·Telegrams and letters are sent to
higher authorities of the bank the same time before 12 noon on 09.04.08.

·Bank officials and the auctioneers
assembled at the scheduled time 12.00 noon.

·A formal letter is handed over to
the authorized officer of the bank by the borrower through an advocate
before 12 noon. The bank officials informed they have not received any
order of DRAT.

·The advocate of the borrower
informed that letters were sent to the higher officials of the bank and
if they perform the auction, it is at their own risk by disobeying the
order of the Applet Tribunal.

·The fax message about the order of DRAT was
sent telegraphically as per the order of DRAT to the bank before
the time of auction sale on 09.04.08. The counsel for the borrower
approached the authorized officer before the time of auction sale and
handed over the message about the order of Stay to stop auction on
09.04.08 by DRAT. The bank official declined to accept the
representation of the counsel of the borrower. The auction sale was
conducted instead of cancellation.

·We planned to file contempt of
Court and lodge criminal complaint against the authorized officer and
the bidder for taking action abnormally low price than the higher value,
certified by the licensed valuer.

·This is the success story of the
Team work, spearheaded by the dynamic young advocate Mr. Arun Murugan,

·We are thanking Respected Mr. Ram
Kishan for his timely assistance and guidance.

The dedication of Mr. Arun Murugan and the will of
safe guarding the interest of the borrower against the mighty bank, by
applying the rights, given as per the Law of the Land in right time, are
highly commendable with the assistance of Mr. Ram Kishan.

Mr. Arun Murugan honoured the trust extended by
the borrower and he succeeded by taking appropriate action in different
places
Madurai,
Chennai and Trichy at a time for this case..

Regards

Sundararajan

Our Client settles at less than 5% of dues due to impact of counter-claim against Bank:-This is just for your information that one of our clients have
settled with the bank for amount less than 5% of the total dues vide State
Bank of Mysore vs. Akasha Textiles, OA No - 3163/2000 in DRT-II Mumbai. Such settlement
could be possible because of the impact of counter-claim as may be seen from the
client’s mail reproduced below:-

I am writing to you after a long delay. This is to
inform you that the SBM DRT case has been settled. Finally the bank came around.
I paid Rs. 62 lacs against the suit amount of Rs. 8.65 crore in Sept.2000. It
took bank to close the case in 6.5 years. On 20th March 2007, SBM withdrew the
OA and I counterclaim. Charge has been released and form 17 filed.

There is no denying
that the bank came under pressure to settle because of Counter Claim. Auditors
had raised this issue in their report for possible claim for Rs.1158 crore.
Credit goes to you solely to compile material and backing me with solid support.

I once again thank you for the trouble that you
have taken for me.

With best regards,

Yours Sincerely,

G.C.Garg.

Important Victory of Our Client against Bank:-
One of our important clients at Chandigarh who filed damage suit of Rs. 1825
crores against a public sector Bank on 13.01.05 registered an important victory
on 03.03.07 when the Court waived the entire court fee despite all opposition by
the defendant Bank. The alleged dues of the Bank are Rs. 30 crores. Since the
damages are much more than the alleged claim of the bank, no recovery action can
be executed till the said damage suit is finally decided. The usual delay in the
litigation does not affect our client as the damages are increasing day by day
due to interest charges at rate which is much higher than the increase in the
alleged claim of the bank. The said damage suit was drafted by us and all
necessary advice and guidance was provided on all dates of proceedings.

Counter-claim is the only defence for the borrowers against Notice under
Securitisation Act
and or Original Application under the DRT Act:-Under the present provisions of law, the only legal defence for the borrowers is
Counter-claim giving quantum of loss and damages suffered due to wrong doings of
the lenders. The pleadings must be prepared by a person having mastery of facts
and mastery of law. The documents such as project report, application for
financial assistance, loan sanction letters, correspondence, balance sheets,
annual reports need to be referred to properly keeping in view the law of
pleadings, law of torts, law of damages, principles of natural justice, equity
and good conscience. If you are unable to get such pleadings prepared, our
professional services may be utilized. With our drafting of pleadings, you get
additional advantage of expert advice during course of litigation from beginning
to end. Since our clients are from all parts of the country and due to our
focussed attention, you get complete and exhaustive guidance. All our clients
are having upper hand over the lenders. In many cases the lenders have come
forward to waive total interest and settle at fraction of the principal amount.
In one of the case the proposal of the lender is waive the total claim provided
the borrower withdraws the damage claim, which the borrower has declined.

Many of our clients and visitors of this web sites desired to
know the success and results of counter-claims prepared by us. Keeping in view,
their desires, this special page has been introduced. In this respect, the
progress is as under:-

(1) The provision of counter-claims in DRT Act 1993 was
specifically introduced only in 2001. We started preparing the counter-claims in
the year 2002.

(2) We need only documents and brief history of the case. The
documents must contain the project report, sanction letters, correspondence,
balance sheets, appraisal reports if any etc. With such inputs we prepare the
entire pleadings as well as the counter-claim in money value. Since we have long
experience in this line and are handling cases from all over the country, we
have acquired specialization and expertise in preparing the counter-claims based
on law of torts. We have introduced the application of the law of torts in
banking cases for the first time in the country. Even top law firms and Supreme
Court Advocates are awarding contracts to us to prepare the counter-claims as it
is not possible for them to prepare the same based on the technical documents
like project reports and balance sheets keeping in view the provisions of law
including the law of torts and law of damages.

(3) Past 3 years, the counter-claims prepared by us are under
adjudication in various DRTs and civil courts in the country. In most of the
cases, the bankers are finding difficult to submit their replies or written
statements to the counter-claims prepared by us. In some case, they have
requested extension after extension of time. In many cases, the bankers have
come forward for settlements. It is worthwhile to mention following specific
cases. The names of the parties, banks and place have not been mentioned due to
obvious reasons. If some one specifically approaches to us to have the details,
we shall provide the same after satisfying that such information will not be
misused. The success and results of the counter-claims prepared by us are as
under:-

Case Mark - 05/Mal/Cha/1825

The borrower filed a damages suit of
Rs. 1825 crores against a public sector bank in civil court in January '05. The
bank dues are stated to be nearly Rs. 30 crores for an industrial finance. It is
learnt that the bank sought the best legal advice in the country. Accordingly
the bank approached the borrower for settlement. The proposal of the bank was
that the entire bank dues would be waived as well as the entire property under
mortgage or hypothecation would be freed. The borrower flatly refused and
preferred to contest the counter-claim in the court of law. This counter-claim
was drafted by us and was thoroughly scrutinized by the borrower from all angles
by best legal brains of the country. The client registered an important victory
when the Court waived the court fee and declared the plaintiffs Indigent
Persons. Now the bank cannot execute any recovery action till this damage suit
is finally decided.

.Case Mark - 02/Kal/Ind/1834

The borrower filed a counter-claim of Rs. 1834 crores against
a public sector bank in DRT in 2002. The bank took considerable time of several
months to reply to the said counter-claim. In desperation, the bank has
appointed a very senior Supreme Court advocate to contest the case in DRT. The
bank being one of the biggest bank in the country has most experienced law
department as well as large numbers of most competent and experienced lawyers as
counsels for DRTs, even then one of the most senior Supreme Court advocate has
been assigned the task of contesting in the most lower court of DRT. This
counter-claim was drafted by us at the stage when the bank was went upon closing
the factory and taking over the personal properties of the borrower and
guarantors in 2002 itself. Now due to the counter-claim, the bank has been
restrained from all such actions as since the counter-claim is much larger than
the alleged debt and hence there is no debt due.

.Case Mark - 04/Gar/Mum/1030

The borrower filed
his written statement in January '03. It was drafted by one of the leading law
firms. No counter-claim was set up. The case came up for final hearing. At this
stage the borrower came to us whether they can raise their counter-claim. We
examined the documents. Since in practically every case, the counter-claim can
be filed, we took up this case and in order to have breathing time for drafting
and filing the counter-claim, we prepared few interim applications which were
taken up for adjudication. In the meantime we prepared the counter-claim of Rs.
1030 crores. There were few rounds of settlement and hence the counter-claim
prepared by us by held in abeyance and it was filed nearly after one year as the
settlement could not be reached. Finally the counter-claim was filed in August
'05. Thus the case where final hearing was due in November '03 and borrower was
expecting decree could get not only get time due to our professional advice, the
counter-claim was also filed as late as August '05. The said leading law firm
was convinced by our approach and the borrower gained new confidence.

.Case Mark - 03/Aan/Mum/16

The borrower
approached us in 2003. We prepared damage suit of Rs. 16 crores against a
co-operative bank. The bank made several attempts under Securitisation Act to
take possession of the factory and other assists. The borrower alongwith his
advocates were in constant touch with us. The borrower filed a writ petition in
High Court. During the proceedings, the bank even took possession of the
factory. In the appeal to DRT, all the facts were submitted in detail as per our
pleadings of the damage suit. The PO DRT ruled in favour of the borrower and
ordered that the possession taken under the Securitisation act was illegal. The
bank has been ordered to return the possession with costs. Such fight was
possible due to our exhaustive pleadings as well as guidance during the
litigation. The advocates also worked hard and argued meticulously at every
stage of the litigation.

(2) We have created a separate web site
www.usindolegal.com which deals
exclusively with our US joint venture enterprise for activities like BPO, legal
BPO, DRT etc. This site has started appearing in the search results of Google,
Mamma, Alexa and Yahoo.

Application of Law of Torts in claiming Damages from Municipal Corporations for
demolition of structures, closure of shops etc:-
In many parts of the country, the Municipal Corporations are demolishing
structures like shops and houses which existed for number of years. The shops
existing for number of years are proposed to be shut down. The affected persons
should claim Damages under the Law of Torts, which would be substantial. It is
learnt that in Delhi itself about 5 lac shops are to be closed down and about 25
lac persons would be out of jobs. All these persons should file damage suits in
the civil court. Since the damages would be substantial, the suits may be filed
as Indigent Persons. Since the damages would attract interest, the usual delay
by the civil courts will not affect the final outcome. The affected shop owners
may discuss the details with us on phone.

Our Articles for Borrowers and Guarantors:- Our
articles on DRT matters have been published in the Financial Express. The All
India Manufacturers Organisation in its famous web site
www.aimoindia.org has reproduced copies
of our four articles. These original articles can be searched in the archive of
the Financial Express in its web site
www.financialexpress.com Two of these articles have been reproduced in other
pages of this web site.

Useful link
www.WorldVideoBusiness.com
:- WorldVideoBusiness-WVB® is a business to business e-marketplace source of
international trade leads, and tender opportunities from companies and
government organizations around the globe.

About Us in
Brief :- (1)
We specialize in
DRT (Debt Recovery Tribunal) and NCLT (National Company Law Tribunal)
matters. As a whole you may approach us for all DRT
Problems and Solutions as well as matters connected with ARCIL i.e. Asset Reconstruction Company
(India) Limited, We
have a Joint Venture with an America based law firm for various activities like
BPO, legal BPO and DRT. The details of the said American firm and the joint
venture may be seen at the page - Our US Joint Venture with Anand Ahuja
Associates or in www.usindolegal.com
(2) For your all problems including those in DRT, please phone us or send
e-mail. Please give your contact details along with your
problems in brief. As a whole
you may approach us for all DRT Problems and Solutions. (2)
With our Legal Opinion, you
need not worry about the Securitisation Act or other DRT matters or NCLT. Please
visit the page Products & Services and Frequently Asked Questions (3) On account
of our expertise in the Law of Torts and Banking and experience past 15 years, we can help you to submit
suitable defence with winning strategy in DRT
cases, Securitisation Act, Guarantors' defence etc. (4) We need
only copies of all available documents to render our expert
'Legal Opinion' which will be quite useful and
valuable to you particularly in DRT i.e. Debt recovery Tribunal. (5) We have
also handled assignments for preparation of damage claims against Electricity
Boards, Insurance Companies, Municipal Corporations etc. all on the basis of the
Law of Torts. (6) The DRT counterclaims is to be
prepared well in advance so that it could be raised at proper time in DRT or
other forum to safeguard the securities and assets. (7) Several DRT counterclaims
drafted by us are being handled by different advocates at DRT Mumbai, DRT Delhi,
DRT Jabalpur etc. Thus DRT advocates are available in these cities. Cases in
other Debt Recovery Tribunals are under process. (8) This site is updated
monthly mostly on every first Monday of the month or for urgent release on any
day with latest material. (9) For further details about us, please visit the
page About Us-DRT Solutions As a whole
you may approach us for all DRT Problems and Solutions. We hail from
the place to which Maharishi Mahesh Yogi and Acharya Rajnish belong and hence
this site is dedicated to them.

We regularly practice TM and SCI of Maharishi Mahesh Yogi.We also regularly practice Hath Yoga
including Pranayam based on Baba Ramdev Ji Maharaj. We daily watch his
global TV program on Astha Channel from 05:30 AM to 8AM and 8PM to 9PM Indian
Standards Time. On Sanskar channel, we daily view the discourse of Pradumn
Maharaj from 4 AM to 5:30 AM. Many chronic diseases such as Cancer, Parkinsons'
disease, Polio, Asthma, Hypertension, diabetes etc. have been cured by the said
method of Pranayam which can be learnt even by watching his program on TV. Since
30th March '06, we have started practicing Sun Gazing as prescribed by HRM.

(3) Shri Satyanarayan Morya alias 'Babaji' for his praiseworthy service to our
nation. Please visit his site
www.artistbaba.com

Disclaimer:- We
have no branch or setup other than at Indore. It is observed that some persons
are using name of our firm as well as name of our web site. We have not given
any such authority to anyone to do so. Under such facts and circumstances, if
anybody suffers any loss, we shall not be responsible. If such instance comes to
notice of someone, we may kindly be informed.